DT's issue with the Daniels thing may be he paid her for the sex and that's what he didn't want being revealed.

On the Haiti comments it perfectly illustrates the problem with Trump - he has been more willing in my opinion to take on more unpopular but necessary issues and try and get action on them (rather than the standard bluster and do nothing career politicians) but it's one step forward and three steps back as he sticks his foot in his mouth with Tom Brady like precision.But let's be honest - if anyone had tied Haiti to a punchline in the "You know you're in a bad bowl when ...." or made a joke that Barkley refused to sign with Cleveland to enter the new Haitian Football League everyone would get the joke, most would laugh and at best a few would be outraged. Haiti is a Emmerthole, DT or nobody on this board made it an Emmerthole, gobs of aid has been funneled into Haiti and it's still an Emmerthole. At some point the people of Haiti need a leader from within their country who can say - "yeah we need some help but if we don't want to keep living in an Emmerthole we need to be the ones to change it"

America's immigration policy and enforcement are a mess. From a policy perspective DT is on point that lottery and chain migration programs should be scrapped. Anchor babies being used to backdoor parents into US should be ended. These programs are abused to the detriment of our citizenry. We need a policy that defines:1. the number of people we want to allow to immigrate into the country2. the criteria for entry (you can have mix of compassionate entry for people escaping war, civil strife, poverty, religious or political persecution) along with merit based entry. America is the most desirable destination in the world - we should seek people who will enhance that - and just being from a different country doesn't quite meet that standard.3. have a thorough vetting process to ensure the security of our citizenry4. enforce the law - and that means penalties for individuals and states that don't comply (I'm looking at you California)

We are a nation of laws. If you do not enforce your law you don't have a law. If you enforce your law based on liberal progressive identity politics (where you can get a pass based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) then you will divide your country along those identity lines. When you combine identity politics with egalitarian economic policy you get authoritarianism and Venezuela.

Like dad my company has multiple employees who have emigrated to the US - and the overwhelming majority are non-white (we have a few Frenchies but only because our HQ is based in France and their employ is secured by company). They all emigrated legally and secured their jobs through the same process all of us did - they applied and proved to be best candidate in the interview process. I can say I have not witnessed any animosity towards these employees based on their race or ethnic background. They are welcomed under the same principles of meritocracy everyone else is - if you are competent and a team player and doing your job nobody gives an Emmert what color you are or what part of the world you came from - maybe it's because I work in a competitive industry (consumer goods packaging) but people don't have the luxury of being bigots - if you believed our accountants the world can potentially come to an end at the end of every month.

The desire of progressive liberals to displace a merit based society with an identity based society is taking this country down a bad road.

Lion was correct, there is no broad brush to paint an entire nation or people, period. Good and bad populate all, yet dunghole places are horrid, not because of the people generally, they do what they are taught but the poverty of wallet and mind lead to these hell hole nations. My food poisoning comments were to the unwashed hands of the unwashed in general, not to any individual since there was no way I could ascertain that but did suffer for months due to the strain of this bacteria, virulent and fecal.

I thank God I wasn't born into the poverty and filth of a third world nation. I was born into poverty but did not know it until later in life. I knew poor people, they got "relief" from the govt. along with free cheese, etc. They live pretty high compared to the third world inhabitants who watch their numerous children die from starvation and disease in their arms without adequate medical treatment. We have it amazing great compared to the remainder of the world. Thus why we are the target destination of so many...everything's free...for a small fee...in America....right?

Unfortunately I don't believe we can be the life boat for the world. We are already springing leaks. If a family member of mine were harmed by an illegal proven to be a criminal before illegally coming here I'd be incensed, at best.

Llama makes many good points. Desired emigrants, screened in today's climate, who can do needful things and have a support system here have always been considered for legal status. Those who thumb their noses at our laws and pour across our borders, particularly southern, began on the wrong foot and will always be breaking our laws of immigration. Do they do jobs others won't, sometimes but is it worth it when too many are criminal and return over and over when deported.

Mexico has a fence / wall at their southern border so far as I hear but they call us names and decry us for suggesting the same? Hypocrites or do they have a real, fair, sensible position I haven't heard? Any ideas why it's OK there but not here?

So I got that going for me...which is nice.It's a cross between Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent and Northern California Sensimilla so you can play 36 holes on it,take it home at night and get stoned to the begesses belt

sameoldlama wrote:On the Haiti comments it perfectly illustrates the problem with Trump - he has been more willing in my opinion to take on more unpopular but necessary issues and try and get action on them (rather than the standard bluster and do nothing career politicians) but it's one step forward and three steps back as he sticks his foot in his mouth with Tom Brady like precision.But let's be honest - if anyone had tied Haiti to a punchline in the "You know you're in a bad bowl when ...." or made a joke that Barkley refused to sign with Cleveland to enter the new Haitian Football League everyone would get the joke, most would laugh and at best a few would be outraged. Haiti is a Emmerthole, DT or nobody on this board made it an Emmerthole, gobs of aid has been funneled into Haiti and it's still an Emmerthole. At some point the people of Haiti need a leader from within their country who can say - "yeah we need some help but if we don't want to keep living in an Emmerthole we need to be the ones to change it"

I believe this viewpoint oversimplifies the situation and also excludes the historical context that helped to create the state of affairs in Haiti (i.e. generation after generation of exploitation by powerful European countries and the good ole USA in conjunction with a once in a lifetime natural disaster that killed over 100,000 people). This idea that we can't and shouldn't take in people from countries that have awful living conditions is frankly, in my opinion, an affront to the professed values of this country.

Your point about this being a nation of laws is well received and I don't think you will find many people who consider themselves moderate (including both the Democrats and Republicans) who don't say that we need some sort of comprehensive immigration reform. I would argue that the progressive viewpoint is simply one that expresses that need in a more humane way.

I find it hard to believe that most of the people on this board, if living in a country ravaged by poverty, disease, and violence wouldn't seek a better life for themselves and their families. I know that I would do ANYTHING within my power to make sure my family was safe and given every opportunity to be successful.

Additionally, I think that characterizing the democratic viewpoint as being one where they want no borders or laws is both incorrect and unhelpful to the debate. I'm all for a pragmatic and humane approach to immigration reform. Nothing about what Donald Trump is saying or doing fits into either of those two categories.

Well, the Trump administration sure does. And they are taking action, too. For example, just this weekend they kicked out another damn illegal parasitic immigrant. Who cares that he had a job, a family, paid taxes, no criminal record and apparently never even had a speeding ticket. We can't worry about such nonsense when we are becoming great again!

For clarity - when I was using the term Democrat it was directed at lawmakers - not necessarily people who support the party or vote Democratic - I recognize many of us split their voting tickets and even if we trend heavily to voting a single party it doesn't mean you support every aspect of that party's platform.

First let's recognize Trump has not enacted any immigration policy - he is enforcing existing policy.

I would actually say Trump's stance is high of pragmatism - enforcing the letter of law and seeking a policy which seeks to vet potential immigrants based on criteria of safety, their ability to assimilate and ability to make a positive contribution is about as pragmatic as it gets. An argument certainly can be made that "compassionate" immigration should be a part of our policy (as I noted in my original post) but simply playing the emotion card of throwing out the "come on in" mat for every person desiring to escape poor conditions around the globe without assessing their ability to assimilate and become independent, contributing members of our society just moves the problem - it doesn't solve it. If "relieving suffering" is your overriding criteria pretty much everyone who could find a way to get here from Haiti, Somalia, Eastern Africa, China, half the Eastern block and socialist wonderland Venezuela would be on their way.

As far as what is humane - to whom? Perhaps not to those seeking entry but what about the people impacted by their entry. People who arrive with no ability to assimilate or become independent will likely compete with current low income citizens for government services such as housing, healthcare food assistance. Is this fair and humane to them? Research the impact the recent mass immigration with no element of pragmatism but a whole lot of compassion has recently had on Europe. Increased stress on social services, increased crime, unhappy populace.

We are a country of laws - we are not supposed to apply them uniformly without bias - that's why that chick wears a blindfold. Everyone who ever committed a crime can come with an emotion based justification of why they shouldn't be held accountable. Almost all us decry the loss of accountability in our society but them want to cherry pick when that value is applied.

- To suggest that Trump's policy initiative is to simply vet and admit only those who are safe and can become independent is to ignore, on it's face, the evidence of his words with respect to specific countries. Everything Donald Trump has said or done with respect towards immigration has been consistent with what appears to be his racist views: People from certain countries and backgrounds are incapable of being productive members of American society. Not based on the content of their character, work ethic, or ability, but because of who they are and where they are from. He has done this with respect to people of a specific faiths (Muslims) people of color (Africa, Central America, Haiti . . . ). And frankly, his base has delighted in agreement with him.

- I think his approach to foreign policy, particularly with respect to how he has treated people of the Muslim faith, will in the long term serve to make the US less safe, not more. My overly simplistic view with regards to combating radical Islam is two-fold: You defeat militarily those who have already committed themselves to the jihadist cause while simultaneously cutting their recruitment off by living the professed values of this country. That is a multifaceted approach that has implications on how we address not only immigration and refugees, but in how our foreign policy works to avoid exacerbating the types of conditions that cause people to flee their homeland.

- To your point about immigrants who come here, don't support themselves or their families, and simply suckle at the government teat (I don't agree with it, but I'll concede it for the sake of argument). What about those who've become overwhelmingly positive and productive members of our society? Blue&White linked an article that outlines someone that fits exactly that bill who is being deported. What about the incredibly productive and American young people who fall under DACA? What about those who've served in our military and have since been deported?

We clearly don't agree how to handle this, and that's fine. But to suggest that Donald Trump's goals with respect to immigration reform will show pragmatism and any level of decency is, in my opinion, laughable.

sameoldlama wrote:We are a country of laws - we are not supposed to apply them uniformly without bias - that's why that chick wears a blindfold. Everyone who ever committed a crime can come with an emotion based justification of why they shouldn't be held accountable. Almost all us decry the loss of accountability in our society but them want to cherry pick when that value is applied.

This statement, in and of itself, is probably a solid foundation for an entire discussion. I am not disagreeing with the comment, as I believe in a perfect world it is a true statement. We are not in a perfect world and laws are not applied fairly as I see it.

I read many good points/thoughts on the subject from everyone and I do mean it sincerely.

Nat's points about curtailing terrorism are good. We can discuss immigration all day, it's difficult but we do allow, from my limited knowledge, more immigrants than most other countries don't we, already? I believe we need strict background checks on immigrants whether they are self supporting or coming as persecuted classes, etc. I would hope most will be able to help us make our country better and not enclave as too many do and not appear to assimilate into our communities in general.

Of course there will be some who appear to be upright "citizens" yet came here illegally and are eventually deported but for every one that is outstanding there are more that are in prison here after being poor citizens in their country of origin, shipped here for us to deal with and pay for while hoping they don't commit a crime so heinous (murder, rape, etc.) harming citizens who have a right to feel safe and protected as much as possible. Not allowing criminals to enter legally through lotteries or chains of alleged families, etc. beyond the illegal entrance of others who end up being criminals too. Not every person entering this nation in any manner is a bad person, many are wonderful people but we like all other nations have laws, which change from time to time dealing with legal immigration into our collective nations. Why should the USA be different and allow indiscriminate immigration legally and illegally as some (not necessarily on this board) suggest?

Screen them carefully and place them on a reporting system for a period of time to track their residence, work, etc. to assure they are on track to being productive citizens and good neighbors. Can't we all get along? RK rip

So I got that going for me...which is nice.It's a cross between Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent and Northern California Sensimilla so you can play 36 holes on it,take it home at night and get stoned to the begesses belt